Academic freedom is one of the noble ideas that sustains scholars within their institutions. Salaries may not be high, but the freedom to think, speak, and create without borders is our food, our work, and our passion.
But in turbulent times — in the 1940s, and again in 2025 — this freedom is tested. For Jews, Israelis or Zionists, the basic principle of academic freedom has turned into a system of double standards. Invitations are refused, voices silenced, and those who speak are excluded and isolated. Calls for boycotting Israeli academics inevitably engulf Jewish scholars as well, casting a shadow over Dutch universities.
As calls for justice in the Middle East grow louder, so too does the quiet closing of doors to debate and dialogue within Dutch academia.
What is Academic Freedom?
Let us begin with Baruch Spinoza. Baruch to bless, means in Hebrew also adored, as we think of Spinoza.
Spinoza argued that free research, study, and speech are essential to the state and to a flourishing society. He supported academic freedom because free thought is the path to knowledge.
In lecture halls we should be able to research, teach, and communicate ideas without fear of institutional censorship or political retribution. Criticism should help us grow, not silence us. Academic freedom is the oxygen of the intellectual enterprise, the soil from which creativity blooms and bears fruit for a better future.
Guided by Spinoza’s legacy, Dutch universities are widely regarded as a hallmark of academic freedom, and some universities are adored by international students. Yet today that freedom is being tested — not by outside forces, but by internal pressures: activists, protesters, social media campaigns, and, above all, anti-Israel and anti-Zionist voices seeking to silence Jewish, Israeli, or pro-Israel scholars.
The Current Crisis
In 2024–2025, multiple Dutch universities faced internal and external pressure to cut ties with Israeli institutions in response to the war in Gaza. Activists and scholars called for divestment, boycotts, the cancellation of exchange programs, and an end to institutional collaboration — regardless of whether the research was military, medical, or humanitarian.
The line quickly shifted from institutions to individuals: heads of intensive care units, pediatric departments, and other scholars were barred simply because they were Israeli. The chilling effect reached far beyond Israel itself: now internationally renowned laureates who support the Jewish nation (=Zionists) decline invitations to Dutch academic settings.
Some colleagues argue that targeting Israeli academics is criticism of Israel, not antisemitism. Criticism of any state is legitimate. But Dutch academic boycotts are applied inconsistently, singling out Israel while ignoring other nations engaged in armed conflicts. Wars often bring human rights violations — that is why international courts exist. Yet the Dutch KNAW declared ‘genocide’ in Gaza even before the International Court of Justice had completed its investigation, and it called for a boycott of Israel as a moral example for Dutch academia (see KNAW statement).
Dutch scholars now claim the authority to judge Israel, as if they themselves possess the right tools and knowledge (see Third academic year into a genocide – where was the UvA? article in Folia).
A Culture of Silencing
Some of us — perhaps naïvely, perhaps bravely — write letters to boards, invite speakers for dialogue, and argue that boycotts undermine academic freedom, while limiting our ability to be a voice for freedom and equality within Israel itself. But we are the proactive minority, overwhelmed by vocal and radical groups that seem to have forgotten what academic freedom truly means.
Behind the headlines, a culture of self-censorship is spreading. Those who deviate, even slightly, risk being labeled, isolated, or excluded. A broader climate of fear now undermines the safety of free inquiry.
Where is the majority in Dutch academics, are they a “silent majority”? Silence is rarely neutral, and is the wrong safeguard. Those who remain silent should be persuaded to stand openly with academic freedom.
What would Spinoza say about academic fear and a culture of silencing? Likely, he would argue that fear stifles freedom and knowledge, while enforced silence cripples the collective intellect, prevents individuals from realizing their potential, and destabilizes society itself.
The Real Test
Academic freedom, like free speech, is easy to defend when we agree. The real test comes when a speaker represents a controversial outlook, when an opinion is unpopular, or when a voice makes us uncomfortable.
Once academic boards decide which voices are legitimate and which must be silenced, academia ceases to curate ideas and instead curates ideology. If universities are to remain spaces of thought and creativity, academic freedom must apply universally — and dialogue must be preserved.
Final Note
I write this article in a personal title. Although I have been silenced, I refuse to accept the culture of silencing in the academy.
cover: screenshot Bloom from YouTube video Free Speech: Foundational Principles
Spinoza heeft niets te maken met zionisme. Besmet zijn reputatie aub niet.
Beste, Good to read that you read the article. It is about academic freedom, not about zionism.
Jij moet Spinoza niet voor jou anti zionistische karretje spannen. Natuurlijk was Spinoza een seculiere en humanistische zionist is Hij zou zeker meelopen in de pro Israël demonstraties.
Spinoza was geen zionist. Het is weerzinwekkend dat je zijn naam met misdaden in verband brengt.
Ra schrijft:But Dutch academic boycotts are applied inconsistently, singling out Israel while ignoring other nations engaged in armed conflicts. Wars often bring human rights violations — that is why international courts exist.
Tja waarom Israel? Omdat joden meer verweven zijn met de Westerse wereld dan enig ander volk en die wereld in grote mate beinvloeden. En het wijzen op ïnternational courts” mag gerust een gotspe worden genoemd. Als er één land is dat zich niets aantrekt van het internationaal recht dan is het Israel wel.
Dear Mrs. Raz,
In my opinion the Western world has come under the spell of moralistic universalism, which undermines any realistic conception of politics. Traditional politics is just about persuing your own interests. The means of persuing these interests is power in all its forms. Therefore traditional politics is neither moralistic nor universal. It is not about ideals, but about muddling through and self-preservation. I plead a return to this type of politics, which is better for ourselves and better for Israel. What, for example, the Dutch universities are doing is ridiculous. They destroy themselves in pursuing some imaginary moral purity.